Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What forensic and ballistic disputes fuel theories of a second shooter or grassy knoll shots?
Executive summary
Newly released JFK files from March 18, 2025 expanded public access to FBI documents, photos, audio and video but — according to mainstream reporting — did not produce definitive proof of a second shooter; Reuters and others highlighted ballistic reports and witness testimony that some interpret as suggestive, while AP and Al Jazeera reported the files “don’t yet point to conspiracies” and “no evidence has been released … to support” a second‑shooter claim [1] [2] [3] [4]. Decades of forensic, acoustic and ballistic study have produced competing findings: the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) cited acoustic analysis as indicating a “high probability” of two gunmen, but later National Academy of Sciences and Justice Department reviews disputed that acoustics conclusion and found no persuasive proof of conspiracy [5] [6].
1. The newest files: more material, not a smoking gun
The March 2025 mass release added roughly 80,000 pages of FBI material — documents, photographs, audio and video — to the public record, which renewed scrutiny and new interpretations but, according to several outlets, did not definitively identify a second shooter; journalists and analysts differ on whether newly disclosed anomalies meaningfully change the case [1] [2] [3] [4].
2. Why ballistics and the head wound matter to the grassy knoll hypothesis
Disputes over trajectories and the nature of Kennedy’s head and neck wounds drive many knoll theories: skeptics argue that the Zapruder film and medical evidence show motions inconsistent with shots only from the Texas School Book Depository, while other physics and forensic reconstructions conclude the wound dynamics fit shots from behind [7] [8] [6]. These directly competing technical interpretations mean experts can point to the same visual or medical record and reach opposite conclusions [8] [6].
3. Acoustic evidence: HSCA’s “high probability” and why it was later questioned
The HSCA in 1979 relied on an acoustic match between a Dallas police dispatch tape and a reconstruction to assert a “high probability” of a second gunman, a key official hinge for the two‑shooter finding [5]. Subsequent re‑analysis — including work cited by the National Academy of Sciences — found that the impulses could have been random noise or cross‑talk and that reliable acoustic support for a second shooter was lacking, undermining the HSCA acoustic claim [5] [6].
4. Eyewitnesses and “earwitness” confusion: human perception under stress
Dozens of Dealey Plaza witnesses reported shots from the grassy knoll; contemporaneous press and later compilations emphasize many earwitnesses perceived front‑right gunfire [9] [10]. Psychological and auditory research, however, shows startled observers often disagree about sound origin in chaotic settings, meaning inconsistent earwitness testimony is expected and not definitive proof of a shooter on the knoll [11] [12].
5. Photographs and “Badge Man”: ambiguous imagery and competing readings
Photographs such as Mary Moorman’s and the so‑called “Badge Man” image have been parsed as possible figures on the knoll, but investigators and analysts disagree; the HSCA deemed some photos of interest while skeptics say shadows, vehicle outlines or artifacts explain the anomalies [13] [14]. Visual ambiguity has long fueled alternate readings without producing a universally accepted identification.
6. Physics and trajectory modeling: one side’s proof is another’s rebuttal
Recent physics modeling (for example, studies asserting head motion matches shots from the depository) have been used to argue the knoll theory is implausible; conversely, critics point to perceived inconsistencies in timing, bullet fragments and trajectory reconstructions to argue a second shooter remains possible. Both camps cite science — but arrive at conflicting conclusions because models use different inputs, assumptions and readings of the film and medical data [8] [7].
7. How 2025 material changed — or didn’t change — the debate
Some commentators and political figures interpreted newly released documents as strengthening second‑shooter arguments; Reuters and opinion pieces highlighted ballistic reports and witness material that “don’t add up” for some observers [2] [15]. Major news organizations like the Associated Press and Al Jazeera, however, reported the files “didn’t initially lend credence” to long‑running conspiracy claims and that no new definitive evidence was released supporting a second shooter [3] [4].
8. What remains unresolved and why caution is required
Available sources show substantial unresolved disputes: earwitness contradictions, contested acoustical analysis, photo ambiguities and competing ballistic/medical interpretations [11] [5] [13] [8]. Where a source explicitly refutes a specific claim, I have cited it; where sources are silent on a point, that point is “not found in current reporting” — for example, no newly released 2025 file in these reports singularly identifies and locates a confirmed second shooter [2] [3] [4].
Bottom line: the forensic and ballistic disputes that fuel grassy‑knoll theories are real — acoustics, wound dynamics, eyewitnesses and ambiguous photos — but mainstream expert re‑analysis and recent reporting continue to conclude that none of these elements, singly or so far in aggregate, amount to definitive proof of a second shooter [5] [3] [4].